NationStates Jolt Archive

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that people who live in "safe" political districts are essentially disfranchised by the near-soviet levels of approval in their districts for politicians who, collectively, have roughly the same approval ratings as Monica Lewinsky?

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that minorities who want to influence political decisions at high levels in our plurality-take-all system HAVE to group together in districts where they become the majority in order to have that influence, and at the price of ghettification and de jeure segregation?

Has anyone ever thought that the geographical system of representation was perfectly okay by 18th century standards, but is hopelessly obsolete today?

just thought I'd open a much under-discussed topic for debate.

No.

It is amazing, the legislature is largely distrusted and disapproved of, yet there is about a 90% retention ratio.

It is amazing, the legislature is largely distrusted and disapproved of, yet there is about a 90% retention ratio.

We like our criminals to be experienced. :)

What would be the details of leaving the state and local governments to geographic districting, but changing the Federal Government to something different?

It seems to be that it would almost require a new Constitutional Convention, and in fact a new Constitution. But in a generalized sense, what's all involved?

Perhaps a multi-party system, where each 300,000 citizens who choose that party for their representative gives that party one seat (regardless of where each of this 300,000 live)? Do we keep or flush the bicameral structure?

It might change the game of pork-barrel politics and gerrymandering, but it seems like it would essentially amount to starting over. I'm not saying that's bad, but its a lot of work...

It is amazing, the legislature is largely distrusted and disapproved of, yet there is about a 90% retention ratio.

This is because a lot of Americans don't research candidates and don't vote. Nobody's quite sure why, and it's unlikely to change except in certain situations (like when people are so sick of the current administration that they are especially motivated to vote in a different one next time).

Since the people in power stay there due to the laziness of their constituents, this situation is unlikely to change.

This is because a lot of Americans don't research candidates and don't vote. Nobody's quite sure why, and it's unlikely to change except in certain situations (like when people are so sick of the current administration that they are especially motivated to vote in a different one next time).

Since the people in power stay there due to the laziness of their constituents, this situation is unlikely to change.

I dunno, what if things get really bad, like the Greater Depression, or something? Would the subset of Americans that are lazy and/or spoiled and/or apathetic just go easy into the swamp, or would America revolt and reform precisely because their easy lives are threatened?

What event/condition would get Americans to vote at a rate equal to the highest rate of any nation?

What would be the details of leaving the state and local governments to geographic districting, but changing the Federal Government to something different?

It seems to be that it would almost require a new Constitutional Convention, and in fact a new Constitution. But in a generalized sense, what's all involved?

Perhaps a multi-party system, where each 300,000 citizens who choose that party for their representative gives that party one seat (regardless of where each of this 300,000 live)? Do we keep or flush the bicameral structure?
Better representation of minorities could be achieved without scrapping the geographic districting by the introduction of proportional representation - ideally the Single Transferable Vote system. Electoral districts would be larger but each would return not one, but several, representatives, more closely reflecting the spread of opinion across the district. Where six separate districts might each return a Republican, for example, a combined district using STV might return 3 Republicans, 2 Democrats and an Independent, and the voters would choose which of the candidates from each party get elected.

Voting is easy - instead of selecting a single candidate, you number them in order of preference. Voting-counting is more complex, but the system works, and is used in Ireland and Tasmania.

Better representation of minorities could be achieved without scrapping the geographic districting by the introduction of proportional representation - ideally the Single Transferable Vote system. Electoral districts would be larger but each would return not one, but several, representatives, more closely reflecting the spread of opinion across the district. Where six separate districts might each return a Republican, for example, a combined district using STV might return 3 Republicans, 2 Democrats and an Independent, and the voters would choose which of the candidates from each party get elected.

Voting is easy - instead of selecting a single candidate, you number them in order of preference. Voting-counting is more complex, but the system works, and is used in Ireland and Tasmania.

Seems reasonable. Has it been this way in Ireland since they formed their Republic? Do they have the same kind of schisms in their country (in the main body of southern counties, I mean).

Seems reasonable. Has it been this way in Ireland since they formed their Republic? Do they have the same kind of schisms in their country (in the main body of southern counties, I mean).
The Irish have used STV since the formation of the Irish Free State in 1922. It seems to work pretty well, and I don't think there are any great "schisms" in the republic.

STV is also used in Northern Ireland for elections to its Assembly, local councils and the European Parliament, in order to ensure fairer representation and try and overcome the great Protestant majority/Catholic minority schism.

The Irish have used STV since the formation of the Irish Free State in 1922. It seems to work pretty well, and I don't think there are any great "schisms" in the republic.


It seems to me that any system might work more smoothly in a society without big divides, unless I'm reversing causality. Would you say that their system allows the southern Irish to achieve harmony, or that they are harmonious before the fact, and their system benefits from it?

We like our criminals to be experienced. :)
Nothing worse than an incompetent and amateur burglar.

Nothing worse than an incompetent and amateur burglar.

As far as unskilled criminals go, I don't think incompetent prostitutes are a very good service. Not that I'm a sex expert, but when I go to my attorney or accountant, I expect a level of due diligence and training.

That's why I'm glad I live in a place with licensed prostitution.

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that people who live in "safe" political districts are essentially disfranchised by the near-soviet levels of approval in their districts for politicians who, collectively, have roughly the same approval ratings as Monica Lewinsky?

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that minorities who want to influence political decisions at high levels in our plurality-take-all system HAVE to group together in districts where they become the majority in order to have that influence, and at the price of ghettification and de jeure segregation?

Has anyone ever thought that the geographical system of representation was perfectly okay by 18th century standards, but is hopelessly obsolete today?
I serously doubt that "minorities" or anyone else, makes a decision as to where they live based on political considerations. Most people with the means to move where they want will decide based on things like natural beauty of the area, the cost of housing, what the people who already live there are like, the availability of work in their career field, the quality of schools if they have children, the tax rates, access to shopping areas, etc. I don't know of one single individual who has decided to move based on their political leanings.

It seems to me that any system might work more smoothly in a society without big divides, unless I'm reversing causality. Would you say that their system allows the southern Irish to achieve harmony, or that they are harmonious before the fact, and their system benefits from it?
They certainly weren't harmonious before the fact - the Irish fought a civil war in 1922-23!

PR can't guarantee harmony, but I think it can help, especially in a system where there are more than two main political parties. A single extremist party is unlikely to get a majority in the legislature and so is forced to work with others in order to govern.

I serously doubt that "minorities" or anyone else, makes a decision as to where they live based on political considerations. Most people with the means to move where they want will decide based on things like natural beauty of the area, the cost of housing, what the people who already live there are like, the availability of work in their career field, the quality of schools if they have children, the tax rates, access to shopping areas, etc. I don't know of one single individual who has decided to move based on their political leanings.

I might've misunderstood his/her post, but I don't think they were saying that people choose where to live on a political basis.

I know one guy who moved to California because he claimed Colorado was too "conservative" (no idea as to the merits of his claim), but truth be told, I think he was moving anyway and just wanted to attach a political statement to it.

I might've misunderstood his/her post, but I don't think they were saying that people choose where to live on a political basis.

I know one guy who moved to California because he claimed Colorado was too "conservative" (no idea as to the merits of his claim), but truth be told, I think he was moving anyway and just wanted to attach a political statement to it.
Heh! I would think so too.

I keep hearing some on here saying things like, "I can't stand the [ erosion of my civil liberties, the current Administration, so many christians/fundies/muslims/blacks/conservatives/liberals/whites/illegal immigrants/what...ever! ], so I'm going to move to [ Canada, England, France, etc. ]." I consider this to be an almost incredibly childish statement. Every place on earth has its good points and its bad points, and you're never going to find a place where everything is exactly how you would want it to be. Pull your pants up, turn your frakking cap around, get a job and learn a bit of responsibility.

. A single extremist party is unlikely to get a majority in the legislature and so is forced to work with others in order to govern.

I'll buy that. Off-topic, I wonder if Eamon DeValera was a big a prick as the movie "Michael Collins" made him out to be. Hollywood History, I try to keep my eyes open and remember that films aren't history at all. It helps to picture John Wayne as Genghis Kahn in "The Conqueror"...

On-topic, one of the things I've noticed in the American system is that seniority and incumbency give some a big edge in power, getting certain committees, having a history of favors to call in and so forth. Sometimes it feels like the career players are all ancient, and their mentality sometimes doesn't feel representative of contemporary America...maybe I'm being unfair, failing to value their experience, and so forth.

Pull your pants up, turn your frakking cap around, get a job and learn a bit of responsibility.

Easy, Grandpa...:)

We like our criminals to be experienced. :)

It isn't working so well lately. Tom Delay is about as experienced as they get, but lately he can't even get in through the window without waking us up in the middle of the night.

Easy, Grandpa...:)
[/RANT MODE INITIATED]"Easy?" EASY?" I'll frakkin' SHOW you "easy!"[/RANT MODE DISABLED] :D

Since the people in power stay there due to the laziness of their constituents, this situation is unlikely to change.

The people in power do not stay there due to the laziness of their constituents. That is a lame excuse they use to blame the voters for their own failings and misconduct.
They stay there because they have manipulated the system so in favor of the incumbent that it is virtually impossible to unseat one. It is almost impossible for an independent candidate to even get their name on a ballot anymore and when they do manage to qualify, there is now one party that literally sues the individual to keep their name off of it.
They have managed down to the most insignifigant details to load the system so in favor of the incumbent that it is now mandatory that the incumbent is automatically placed first on the ballot.
They have hijacked campaign finance under the guise of reform, to the point that a challenger cannot even spend his own money to match the levels of corporations and law firms funneling money to both sides just to hedge their bets.
I won't even get into what McCain/Feingold did with their so called reform bill because that not only took out any limits what so ever it also canceled the ability to even say anything against an incumbent for weeks before an election. Before that one is all over they will be arresting bloggers by the dozens.
These maggots have become so drunk with power that in Nebraska, they are even suing their own constituents for daring to vote for term limits. How sick is that?

The people in power do not stay there due to the laziness of their constituents. That is a lame excuse they use to blame the voters for their own failings and misconduct.
They stay there because they have manipulated the system so in favor of the incumbent that it is virtually impossible to unseat one. It is almost impossible for an independent candidate to even get their name on a ballot anymore and when they do manage to qualify, there is now one party that literally sues the individual to keep their name off of it.
They have managed down to the most insignifigant details to load the system so in favor of the incumbent that it is now mandatory that the incumbent is automatically placed first on the ballot.
They have hijacked campaign finance under the guise of reform, to the point that a challenger cannot even spend his own money to match the levels of corporations and law firms funneling money to both sides just to hedge their bets.
I won't even get into what McCain/Feingold did with their so called reform bill because that not only took out any limits what so ever it also canceled the ability to even say anything against an incumbent for weeks before an election. Before that one is all over they will be arresting bloggers by the dozens.
These maggots have become so drunk with power that in Nebraska, they are even suing their own constituents for daring to vote for term limits. How sick is that?

Some good points, but could we say that a less lazy constituency could counteract these things by some mechanism? A system that favors the incumbent could be reformed with enough people (maybe an unrealistically massive majority, but I hope it could be done).

It isn't working so well lately. Tom Delay is about as experienced as they get, but lately he can't even get in through the window without waking us up in the middle of the night.

that's because our criminals have gone beyond experienced, and moved on to complacent and sloppy.

This is because a lot of Americans don't research candidates and don't vote. Nobody's quite sure why, and it's unlikely to change except in certain situations (like when people are so sick of the current administration that they are especially motivated to vote in a different one next time).

Since the people in power stay there due to the laziness of their constituents, this situation is unlikely to change.

It is due to a combination of gerrymandering, ineffectiveness of third parties, and the mutual promotion of a republican/democratic dichotomy.

Better representation of minorities could be achieved without scrapping the geographic districting by the introduction of proportional representation - ideally the Single Transferable Vote system. Electoral districts would be larger but each would return not one, but several, representatives, more closely reflecting the spread of opinion across the district. Where six separate districts might each return a Republican, for example, a combined district using STV might return 3 Republicans, 2 Democrats and an Independent, and the voters would choose which of the candidates from each party get elected.

Voting is easy - instead of selecting a single candidate, you number them in order of preference. Voting-counting is more complex, but the system works, and is used in Ireland and Tasmania.

I'd like to see a mixed system.

The idea of my own unfinished REed constituition is a federal tricameral system.

There is large lower house with a mixed proportional and geographic system that is uniform accross the country ands has short terms (three years). Thius gives a highly responsive and representative body.

There is a medium sized middle house with representation entierly determined by the states, giving federal balance between all the states (cantons RP wise). To pull a nice number out of the hat, lets say 3 reps per state/canton.

Then the highest body is a small directly elected nation body with long terms (and term limits). This would provide the deliberative function.

These would need to be balanced fairly as far as their powers. Lets say give the budget and domestic affairs to the lower house, war making and international affairs to the upper house, and require the approval of the middle house. Maybe give executive appointment approval to them as well.

Some of this evolved out of the constitution I wrote for a constitutional design class at university. That constitution also had a tricameral legislative body as well as a triumveral executive (domestic head of government, international head of government, and titular head of state who also serves as arbitrator between the two heads of government)

On-topic, one of the things I've noticed in the American system is that seniority and incumbency give some a big edge in power, getting certain committees, having a history of favors to call in and so forth. Sometimes it feels like the career players are all ancient, and their mentality sometimes doesn't feel representative of contemporary America...maybe I'm being unfair, failing to value their experience, and so forth.
To some extent, seniority will bring advantages for the right reasons, primarily experience, but it is wrong if it goes so far as to give benefits based primarily on length of service. Incompetant politicians can be around for a long time, and newcomers can be extremely good at their job.

Another advantage of STV (in theory at least) is that no representative can rest on his laurels, assured of his continued seat because his party keeps nominating him as their candidate. In multi-member constituencies/districts, candidates are competing against others from their own party as well as those from other parties, so an elector can vote for his favourite party while helping to throw out a particular incumbant from that party at the same time.

Some good points, but could we say that a less lazy constituency could counteract these things by some mechanism? A system that favors the incumbent could be reformed with enough people (maybe an unrealistically massive majority, but I hope it could be done).

Short of revolution it would require finding enough representation for a constitutional amendment implementing strict term limits on Congress and returning the job to a part time position. The people in the US lost all control of their elected representatives once they allowed them to make themselves rich. Those pay raises immediately removed even freshmen members from the ranks of their own constituents.
In addition it would require the end of corporate taxation and the criminalization of corporate lobbying (bribery). Corportations pay almost no taxes anyway and the only thing you do by taxing them is give them a voice in governmental affairs. Take them out of the equation completely by making the penalty so severe they would not even consider the thought.
Thirdly, give the GAO criminial enforcement powers over the bureaucrats that they audit.
In summary, not a snowballs chance in hell of it happening peacefully.

In summary, not a snowballs chance in hell of it happening peacefully.

Well, poop. 'Cause lazy people make substandard revolutionaries...

"Gentleman, welcome to The Resistance. You may call me Le Reynard. Before us lies a path of blood, pain, sacrifice, and...excuse me...hello...could somebody wake him up?"

Well, poop. 'Cause lazy people make substandard revolutionaries...

it's alright, revolutions require fewer participants anyway. especially if those lazy people are lazy enough to not care which side wins.

It's no different here in the UK either. FPTP works fine when you have non-partisan politics like the UK was when it developed and how George Washington envisaged the US government working. (I'd love to see his face if he could be told about US political polarization!)

I also heard that it wouldn't take a constitutional amendment to change the voting system (Yes, I hear odd shite..).

it's alright, revolutions require fewer participants anyway. especially if those lazy people are lazy enough to not care which side wins.

Kind of like a two-on-one revolution in a county with a population in the millions. Or better: everyone lazy enough not to care except me.

We like our criminals to be experienced. :)

It's amazing that we can without irony make statements like this and be completely serious, without doing anything about the system

I serously doubt that "minorities" or anyone else, makes a decision as to where they live based on political considerations. Most people with the means to move where they want will decide based on things like natural beauty of the area, the cost of housing, what the people who already live there are like, the availability of work in their career field, the quality of schools if they have children, the tax rates, access to shopping areas, etc. I don't know of one single individual who has decided to move based on their political leanings.

Granted those are the reasons for moving, but I'm saying that UNLESS minorities in a given district group together to become the majority, they have no hope of having any political influence INSIDE government (not counting lobbying groups like the ACLU or NAACP) at anywhere near the levels of population or interest across the country

The people in power do not stay there due to the laziness of their constituents. That is a lame excuse they use to blame the voters for their own failings and misconduct.
They stay there because they have manipulated the system so in favor of the incumbent that it is virtually impossible to unseat one. It is almost impossible for an independent candidate to even get their name on a ballot anymore and when they do manage to qualify, there is now one party that literally sues the individual to keep their name off of it.
They have managed down to the most insignifigant details to load the system so in favor of the incumbent that it is now mandatory that the incumbent is automatically placed first on the ballot.
They have hijacked campaign finance under the guise of reform, to the point that a challenger cannot even spend his own money to match the levels of corporations and law firms funneling money to both sides just to hedge their bets.
I won't even get into what McCain/Feingold did with their so called reform bill because that not only took out any limits what so ever it also canceled the ability to even say anything against an incumbent for weeks before an election. Before that one is all over they will be arresting bloggers by the dozens.
These maggots have become so drunk with power that in Nebraska, they are even suing their own constituents for daring to vote for term limits. How sick is that?

Preach the Gospel, Brother!!

It's a ridiculous way to elect a Congress.

Single transferable vote is a good proposal; if one-member districts are desired, instant-runoff voting or a Condorcet system would be a significant improvement, allowing for serious multiple-candidate races.

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that people who live in "safe" political districts are essentially disfranchised by the near-soviet levels of approval in their districts for politicians who, collectively, have roughly the same approval ratings as Monica Lewinsky?

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that minorities who want to influence political decisions at high levels in our plurality-take-all system HAVE to group together in districts where they become the majority in order to have that influence, and at the price of ghettification and de jeure segregation?

Has anyone ever thought that the geographical system of representation was perfectly okay by 18th century standards, but is hopelessly obsolete today?

just thought I'd open a much under-discussed topic for debate.

Have you ever read The Federalist Papers (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm)? Much of what you describe is exactly how the system is supposed to work.

You would have a hard time proving that ghettification and de jure segregation is caused by legislative districts.

The real problem has only been mentioned once. And that is Gerrymandering. Senate races tend to be very competitive, the problem in the House of Representatives.

And incidently Independents never have success, expect in proportional voting. Even then, they're generally a bad thing, because you end up with someone elected by the-lunatic-fringe holding the balance of power, who is only interested in pleasing the 0.5% of the population that voted for him.

The real problem has only been mentioned once. And that is Gerrymandering. Senate races tend to be very competitive, the problem in the House of Representatives.

Yes, but the Senate is even less democratic than the House. Why should the people of Wyoming have so much greater per person representation than the people of California?

And incidently Independents never have success, expect in proportional voting. Even then, they're generally a bad thing, because you end up with someone elected by the-lunatic-fringe holding the balance of power, who is only interested in pleasing the 0.5% of the population that voted for him.

If the agenda is truly lunatic fringe, then none of the major parties would ally with the party. If it's merely an ignored issue, then there's nothing undemocratic about such coalitions. If the position of the small party is strongly opposed by portions of the population, then they can form their own party to counteract the small party's influence.

I'd like to see a mixed system.

The idea of my own unfinished REed constituition is a federal tricameral system.

There is large lower house with a mixed proportional and geographic system that is uniform accross the country ands has short terms (three years). Thius gives a highly responsive and representative body.

There is a medium sized middle house with representation entierly determined by the states, giving federal balance between all the states (cantons RP wise). To pull a nice number out of the hat, lets say 3 reps per state/canton.

Then the highest body is a small directly elected nation body with long terms (and term limits). This would provide the deliberative function.

These would need to be balanced fairly as far as their powers. Lets say give the budget and domestic affairs to the lower house, war making and international affairs to the upper house, and require the approval of the middle house. Maybe give executive appointment approval to them as well.

Some of this evolved out of the constitution I wrote for a constitutional design class at university. That constitution also had a tricameral legislative body as well as a triumveral executive (domestic head of government, international head of government, and titular head of state who also serves as arbitrator between the two heads of government)

I like all of this except the triumverate. I would still go with a single executive, but allow the legislature oversight.

I've always thought is would be an improvment to make the house of reps. PR. I would also massively increase their number. 435 just isn't enough for a population the size of the US's.

Probably the President should be elected by direct vote too, but, recent events notwithstanding, it's not that big a deal.

Soheran, I said competitive, not democratic :)

My point about independents is essentially that they end up punching above their weight (the more partisan the system, the more they do so).

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that people who live in "safe" political districts are essentially disfranchised by the near-soviet levels of approval in their districts for politicians who, collectively, have roughly the same approval ratings as Monica Lewinsky?

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that minorities who want to influence political decisions at high levels in our plurality-take-all system HAVE to group together in districts where they become the majority in order to have that influence, and at the price of ghettification and de jeure segregation?

Has anyone ever thought that the geographical system of representation was perfectly okay by 18th century standards, but is hopelessly obsolete today?

just thought I'd open a much under-discussed topic for debate.
California tried to pass a ballot measure that would have redistricting done by a non-political committee, but it didn't get through.

Better representation of minorities could be achieved without scrapping the geographic districting by the introduction of proportional representation - ideally the Single Transferable Vote system. Electoral districts would be larger but each would return not one, but several, representatives, more closely reflecting the spread of opinion across the district. Where six separate districts might each return a Republican, for example, a combined district using STV might return 3 Republicans, 2 Democrats and an Independent, and the voters would choose which of the candidates from each party get elected.

Voting is easy - instead of selecting a single candidate, you number them in order of preference. Voting-counting is more complex, but the system works, and is used in Ireland and Tasmania.
Screw that, just stop gerrymandering.

The problem with stopping Gerrymandering is that it's in the interests of the only people who can stop Gerrymandering to keep it going.

Yes, but the Senate is even less democratic than the House. Why should the people of Wyoming have so much greater per person representation than the people of California?

Read the Federalist Papers. The House of Representatives is proportional to population to please the big states, and the Senate is two per state to ensure that the smaller ones are not disenfranchised. It's a very effective compromise.

The problem with stopping Gerrymandering is that it's in the interests of the only people who can stop Gerrymandering to keep it going.
Uh, no, actually the people of California essentially voted *not* to stop gerrymandering in their state in a ballot proposition recently.

I think this matches the truth: Freedom and Justice for all, except blacks, women, socialists and immigrants.

Soheran, I said competitive, not democratic :)

Fair enough.

My point about independents is essentially that they end up punching above their weight (the more partisan the system, the more they do so).

I understood your point.

Our democratic systems operate on the principle of majority rule, which is unfortunate in some ways, but nevertheless likely necessary for efficiency purposes. Thus in some cases minority groups coalesce to attain policy objectives. I do not hold this to be necessarily undemocratic. If a group is willing to accept another's agenda in trade for the other group's acceptance of theirs, that's a perfectly democratic procedure. While it's true that without such coalitions, neither agenda would have majority support, that is irrelevant, because any opposition to the other group's agenda within a given group is superceded by the desire to pursue their own agenda. It's essentially a compromise option.

This is no more undemocratic than, say, pork barrel politics in the US Congress; it is using concessions to bring a minority in line with a plurality, and thus achieving majority support for a particular group of stances on issues. While some of the supporters of that group may have problems with some of the stances, ultimately they choose that group as the preferential option, and would rather have it than nothing. If there is serious, deep-seated opposition, those opposed can do what those opposed to pork-barrel politics can never do in our two-party system - they can form another party, one based upon opposition to the minority agenda, and use the same tactics as the party they oppose. That was the option pursued by Israeli secularists in their proportional represenation party-list system - to counteract the minority fundamentalist strangehold on Israeli politics they created the secularist party Shinui, and managed to form a coalition with Likud that edged out the main fundamentalist party, Shas.

Two-party systems have this issue too; it's built into all majority-rule systems. I already mentioned the example of pork barrel politics, but a better one is perhaps the coalitions that make up the US Democratic Party. African Americans have a higher rate of opposition to gay marriage and abortion than American Whites, but African Americans vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats - in favor of both - while American Whites tend, if far less strongly, to vote Republican - opposed to both. This is chiefly because the Democratic stances on social justice and civil rights are far more significant to the African American population, and for the sake of pursuing such goals religiously conservative African Americans are willing to vote for a party that opposes their conservative stances.

Read the Federalist Papers. The House of Representatives is proportional to population to please the big states, and the Senate is two per state to ensure that the smaller ones are not disenfranchised. It's a very effective compromise.

I know that. It's not a good compromise at all, because it's based on states, not human beings, and in a democratic system the people rule, not the states.

That is not to say that the Founding Fathers intended to create a democratic system, but what the Founding Fathers intended is not relevant to me.

I know that. It's not a good compromise at all, because it's based on states, not human beings, and in a democratic system the people rule, not the states.

That is not to say that the Founding Fathers intended to create a democratic system, but what the Founding Fathers intended is not relevant to me.
I respectfully disagree. I believe it is an excellent compromise that gives more power to larger states while leaving just enough for smaller ones so that the larger ones can't walk all over them. I need only point to the problems in Canada with less populous provinces having virtually no influence on the way their government is run and becoming increasingly disaffected with it to show why this is an excellent idea. People from different places have different regional and cultural priorities; it is more important to ensure that the minority does not get stepped on than it is to ensure the majority rules.

I respectfully disagree. I believe it is an excellent compromise that gives more power to larger states while leaving just enough for smaller ones so that the larger ones can't walk all over them. I need only point to the problems in Canada with less populous provinces having virtually no influence on the way their government is run and becoming increasingly disaffected with it to show why this is an excellent idea. People from different places have different regional and cultural priorities; it is more important to ensure that the minority does not get stepped on than it is to ensure the majority rules.

Other minorities are stepped on as well. Should we have another Senate, where, say, the various racial minorities have equal representation with the white population? What about class? Should we also have a Senate based on class differences, with those primarily workers having equal representation with those primarily owners and managers?

Why only respect geographic minorities? And why assign geographic minorities as arbitrarily as they are with the current state system? Geographical demographics change over time, yet we don't have redistricting for states to account for that. The states aren't even equal in area.

In principle what you are saying makes sense, though philosophically I might disagree, but under the current system the differences in representation are essentially random.

Well, first thing we need to do is remove the private interests and corporation control from the government. In other words, put a money cap on how much can be spent on a campaign. A low money cap. One that third parties can reach just as easily as the "big two."

Second, get a non-partisan group to set up districts to stop gerrymandering.

And, yeah, there is more but I'm tired.

Someone mentioned something about how horrified george washington would be to see the polarized politics of today. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but he saw it coming. In his final address at the end of his second term, he gave a long speech trying to tell people not to get involved in partisan politics. People were already starting to rally into two major parties and he didn't want that to happen, knowing it would ruin the country.
I think he'd be horrified, sure, but not surprised in the slightest, probably.

Other minorities are stepped on as well. Should we have another Senate, where, say, the various racial minorities have equal representation with the white population? What about class? Should we also have a Senate based on class differences, with those primarily workers having equal representation with those primarily owners and managers?

Why only respect geographic minorities? And why assign geographic minorities as arbitrarily as they are with the current state system? Geographical demographics change over time, yet we don't have redistricting for states to account for that. The states aren't even equal in area.

In principle what you are saying makes sense, though philosophically I might disagree, but under the current system the differences in representation are essentially random.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the United States is a unitary state, which it clearly is not. The states, as things are now, are not "arbitrary" geographic minorities. Some of the Western states may have been arbitrarily drawn out, but they've been there long enough that they have a real identity now. Like it or not, the states and their current borders are unlikely to change anytime soon.

Have you ever read The Federalist Papers (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm)? Much of what you describe is exactly how the system is supposed to work.

You would have a hard time proving that ghettification and de jure segregation is caused by legislative districts.

You're looking at the effect as the cause. De Jeure segregation is not caused by districting. It is, however, the only option for minorities to take if they want intra-governmental power. I've explained this before, don't make me explain it again.

As to the Federalist, they were written by men who didn't believe in what they were writing. Hamilton and Madison deplored some of the compromises they had to make, and Hamilton said in the Federalist that the constitution was "an imperfect document, but the lesser of evils" (pardon me if the quote isn't exact). by 18th century standards, yes that is how the constitution is supposed to work. And a great system it was. However, in an era where 1/3 of the population moves every 2 years, as opposed to every 2 GENERATIONS in the 1800's, geographical districting makes little sense if you want true NATIONAL representation.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the United States is a unitary state, which it clearly is not. The states, as things are now, are not "arbitrary" geographic minorities. Some of the Western states may have been arbitrarily drawn out, but they've been there long enough that they have a real identity now. Like it or not, the states and their current borders are unlikely to change anytime soon.

Noone said change the state representation system. It's the districting within the states, for the "populist house" the House of Representatives that needs to be redone in order to more accurately represent truly National interests. This is merely an extension of Federalism ie. unifying the nation as a Single Entity, not merely a collection of states or districts or cities or towns.

Our democratic systems operate on the principle of majority rule, which is unfortunate in some ways, but nevertheless likely necessary for efficiency purposes. Thus in some cases minority groups coalesce to attain policy objectives. I do not hold this to be necessarily undemocratic. If a group is willing to accept another's agenda in trade for the other group's acceptance of theirs, that's a perfectly democratic procedure. While it's true that without such coalitions, neither agenda would have majority support, that is irrelevant, because any opposition to the other group's agenda within a given group is superceded by the desire to pursue their own agenda. It's essentially a compromise option.The US electoral system, in practice, operates on a principle of minority rule. The manipulation of districts and the coalition nature of the two party system firmly installed force minority groups to either give up power, or agenda, and ultimately (through the primary system) hand decisive political power in shaping policy to a relatively small minority of people.

This is not necessary for "efficiency reasons," nor is it at all desirable. Simply plurality voting is fundamentally flawed, and gets "stuck" in this two-party mode inevitably. Which is why a better system, such as approval voting, needs to be installed.

In plurality voting, you vote for one candidate out of a group. The person with the highest votes - who could well be the least popular candidate - wins.
In approval voting, you vote yes or no on each candidate. The person with the highest number of votes is the one most agreeable to the largest number of people.

In approval voting, third parties do not "rob" their constituency and influence the election opposite their own agenda.

This is to say nothing of the creation of "safe" districts. If single-candidate districts are being used, then they should be made - via a neutral process - as compact as possible. This would be made easiest by a dramatic enlargement of the House, making members of the House immediately responsive to a relatively small number of voters. Enlarge the House by a factor of 5-10, and you'll see Representatives who are responsive.

Noone said change the state representation system. It's the districting within the states, for the "populist house" the House of Representatives that needs to be redone in order to more accurately represent truly National interests. This is merely an extension of Federalism ie. unifying the nation as a Single Entity, not merely a collection of states or districts or cities or towns.

Is this really what we want? Wouldn't it be better to allow the states to conduct their own domestic affairs, within broad guidelines. Don't think that I'm advocating a return to civil rights abuses by the states, I'm firmly against that. However, wouldn't it be better to allow states to come up with their own solutions, tailored to their needs rather than imposing a clumsy "one size fits all" solution that really doesn't fit anybody?

Anyway, my idea is that the Federal government should focus mainly on external affairs and civil rights violations by the states. It should be unchallenged in these areas, but I don't really see why having them into everything else is really such a good thing.

Is this really what we want? Wouldn't it be better to allow the states to conduct their own domestic affairs, within broad guidelines. Don't think that I'm advocating a return to civil rights abuses by the states, I'm firmly against that. However, wouldn't it be better to allow states to come up with their own solutions, tailored to their needs rather than imposing a clumsy "one size fits all" solution that really doesn't fit anybody?

Anyway, my idea is that the Federal government should focus mainly on external affairs and civil rights violations by the states. It should be unchallenged in these areas, but I don't really see why having them into everything else is really such a good thing.

I'm not advocating an overly-nosy Federal Government poking into every aspect of state, local, and federal matters, but I AM advocating a new way in which states and localities elect the most well recieved members of their community to congress, and additionally have the ability to vote on "at large" candidates on a slate process, which would truly make the Federal government Federal in that it would truly be a national body, instead of just a collection of local interests.

I'm not advocating an overly-nosy Federal Government poking into every aspect of state, local, and federal matters, but I AM advocating a new way in which states and localities elect the most well recieved members of their community to congress, and additionally have the ability to vote on "at large" candidates on a slate process, which would truly make the Federal government Federal in that it would truly be a national body, instead of just a collection of local interests.
Um, the Constitution was written largely to limit and proscribe Federal power vis a vis the States and the People.

If you favor a really powerful Federal government, and want to weaken the States, and really weaken The People, your plan is an excellent idea. But I think it's a bad idea.